Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ScuseMe

Man, poor Billy got the wax treatment too...

Poor, poor Billy

I'm surprised he's not melting in that jungle heat

That is brutal...there is no fine detail whatsoever.

[meehan]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

You can't tell anything in that image has been manipulated.

Maybe you can't but there are some of us who can actually smell grain. Or in this case, the lack of.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

A transfer scrubbed of grain isn't a problem for me at all.

It's also scrubbed of detail, which should be a problem.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Unless Im walking through a sandstorm the real world does not have grain around me. A transfer scrubbed of grain isn't a problem for me at all.

This is the new version of everyone's grandma who hated letterboxing in 1993.

[Crimson King]

Glad I have the Predator/Commando blu ray 2 pack. Will not be upgrading!

[SynGamer]

Looking at the screens from the original Blu-ray review, I, personally, think this new release looks better. It's obvious they removed nearly all the grain, but I still think it looks better...more consistent perhaps?

To each their own, but You can definitely tell the colors pop out more. Since I don't own it already, I'm probably going to get this version, if for nothing else, for the extra's.

[Sith]

I was hesitant to double dip cause I'm still limping from the $34.99 I paid on release day when it first came out. But now that I see the reviews I can
heal up without having to go back in for seconds.

[SynGamer]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

It's also scrubbed of detail, which should be a problem.

You make it seem as though there's no detail what-so-ever...

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

It's also scrubbed of detail, which should be a problem.

From the screenshots, there's really very little evidence of that. Yes, there are places where detail has been lost, but there's just as many where detail has been gained because of the improved encode and/or contrast.

[SynGamer]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

From the screenshots, there's really very little evidence of that. Yes, there are places where detail has been lost, but there's just as many where detail has been gained because of the improved encode and/or contrast.

Colors = great, picture= consistent. Looking at the scene with the rock in the lower left corner, you can see quite a bit of detail there.

Originally Posted by Cliff

You also don't have alien predators walking around you in the real world. Should they remove those as well?

It;s one thing to try and win an argument, if you're going to reduce this to a childish mess, at least try to come up with a better example. Last I checked, the world doesn't have a grainy look to it...agree or disagree, it's true.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

I might be in the minority here but this release doesn't sound bad at all. Unless Im walking through a sandstorm the real world does not have grain around me.

I certainly hope you are the minority
What do movies have to do with the real world? Are cuts, zooms, etc, part of the real world? I've never been attacked by an extra-terrestrial monster in the real world, so let's just remove that whole part of the movie too while we're at it

[csdot]

Originally Posted by ScuseMe

Man, poor Billy got the wax treatment too...

Poor, poor Billy

I'm surprised he's not melting in that jungle heat

hahahahaha "why did they make that muppet out of leather?"

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Cliff

You also don't have alien predators walking around you in the real world. Should they remove those as well?

Great strawman argument. *Slow claps*

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

No, it isn't. That screenshot is the best Predator has ever looked by far, and there's absolutely zero trace of digital manipulation in that shot. I'm not saying there isn't digital manipulation, I'm saying it's undetectable. Which is the only way digital manipulation should be used.

Yeah it is, sorry. It's smudgy and soft looking. I can detect it pretty easily.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by retablo

Yeah it is, sorry. It's smudgy and soft looking. I can detect it pretty easily.

Then.... don't buy it and stop harassing those who do want to?

[SynGamer]

Originally Posted by Beast

Then.... don't buy it and stop harassing those who do want to?

This +1.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

It's also scrubbed of detail, which should be a problem.

Im not saying the process is perfect but I don't find grain filled transfers attractive. If the grain was left in I wouldn't have cried since I can see the arguements on the other side but some of those shots look pretty good and a clean look isn't a big problem for me.

[Beast]

Sure. They may have gone a bit too far with the DNR. If they would have dialed it back a bit, it probably would have been a perfect in-between option. But some of us happen to think it looks pretty good. There is still grain evident in shots. And outside of the one numerously posted image of Arnie in the red shirt, where the lighting and color of the shirt likely contributed to the over-scrubbed nature of that particular shot. But one should never judge a movie based on a couple of shots. There's plenty of movies without DNR that have one really bad example that could be dragged out and pointed to as some sort of evidence. But it's not accurate in either case.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by retablo

Yeah it is, sorry. It's smudgy and soft looking. I can detect it pretty easily.

The shots that always had a soft focus are smudgy and soft looking, yes; and those are the ones where the new release leaves much to be desired. There's no longer a layer of grime, dirt, and excessive grain present any longer to help mask the soft focus. For the remainder of the shots, at least for the remainder of the screenshots I've seen, the new release is an improvement.

In my opinion, whether or not the new release is superior is a question of whether one wants to concentrate on the 10% of shots that they botched, or the 90% of shots that they improved.

[SynGamer]

Originally Posted by Beast

Sure. They may have gone a bit too far with the DNR. If they would have dialed it back a bit, it probably would have been a perfect in-between option. But some of us happen to think it looks pretty good. There is still grain evident in shots. And outside of the one numerously posted image of Arnie in the red shirt, where the lighting and color of the shirt likely contributed to the over-scrubbed nature of that particular shot. But one should never judge a movie based on a couple of shots. There's plenty of movies without DNR that have one really bad example that could be dragged out and pointed to as some sort of evidence. But it's not accurate in either case.

Speaking of screenshots, why didn't Casey pull (roughly) the same screens as the first BR release? That would have made comparing the two versions MUCH easier...justing saying.